Clark Griswold

Copy that. Just vaporware but a Silent Typhoon concept for what could be a relevant 4.5 version. Silent Typhoon: Advanced Typhoon concept | Hush-Kit I like it and groking some on the idea of 4.5 fighters, what could make them relevant? Capes that 5th gen don't / can't have to augment them on Night 1, 2, etc... Large missile loadouts, 10 or more. Link node between LO and Legacy. Active radar on initial ingress to target(s). If 2 seater, UCAV director. DCA for HVAAs. Long range patrol fighter/interceptor. Etc... If we could coordinate the team, spread the financial load, etc... getting them (Euros) to develop a "Super Typhoon" with the promise of sales to the US could work. They develop to agreed upon new capes, paying for all of it. We buy X number with the agreement they buy X number of LO assets (35 or an LO UCAV). Keeps most offensive capabilities with the US so if NATO or other coalition has to go kick in the door somewhere, we will be in the coalition, giving them the assurance we are in it if they are in it. Gives us a 4.5 gen asset with the risk (financial and technical) balanced out.

Concur As to the EF, it’s had a decent production run - why is it that pricey to own / operate? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry, they'll keep shifting the goal posts to keep the game going.

That's a good question and one not answered in the article. I get the sense of what the CSAF wants, higher end / new capes than our current 4th Gens but not at Low Obs operational costs and with lower than legacy platform logistical & maintenance costs/issues. It might be (what mission(s) is he thinking of for the x plane) what missions can I not do with a 22/35? I think the math is becoming harder concerning the F-35 and the other 69 other problems on his plate and he is looking at alternatives to afford what we need now and 20 years into the future, particularly as these legacy 4th gens start to time out or become more expensive to maintain. Not being cheeky but define completely unsuitable. If by that you mean it can't go deep into the WEZ of high end threats to deliver weapons therefore no good at all for the high end fight I would respectfully disagree as there are defensive roles and offense supporting roles that a 4+ gen could fulfill to deliver the total airpower effects we want. As to low end as in a permissive air environment ala Afghanistan, no argument, light attack/overwatch/RPA is needed there. 4+ gen likely now is valuable to the team if it can self-escort / defend all while accomplishing some of the attack mission set. Not a first string player but a good second string member that rounds out the bench.

If you have free articles left or a subscription to NR: Syrian Civil War & American Troops: Arab Tribes Are the Key to Understanding Conflict | National Review From the article: The challenge for the United States, as it navigates the social and political environment of the region, trying to determine how best to work with the tribes of Syria and Iraq to bring about ISIS’s full defeat and prevent its return, is that there may be no solution at all.

Yeah but I think they are looking for capes that you likely need new iron to deliver. The article referenced the desire for an OMS and specifically that the venerable Viper unfortunately doesn't have that, I suspect there are other desired capes it or other current 4th gens don't have or would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade to in a 25+ year old jet. New iron can make the dollars and cents work considering the steeper & steeper climb in total ownership cost of old iron as corrosion/fatigue set in, parts become scarce, vendors stop supporting/go out of business, etc...

Yup But methinks he / they wants more than the Light Attack / Overwatch. Likely a wingman / missile platform / gap filler fighter to accompany the 5th Gens and fight where not needed. I suspect we can't afford all the F-35s we have planned on and the B-21s we have said we need plus the likely more that we actually need, plus unfornicating the -46, etc... to deter and / or defeat China/Russia/Iran/NK aggressions, perhaps simultaneously for some scenarios. We will have to change course and address financial, operational and technical realities. There was a NR article on a hypothetical aircraft proposal, an F-45 Mustang II here. It is a lot of wishing and probably not possible for the cost and size the author envisions but I think his sentiment of light, reliable and focused mission capabilities is not without merit. If I were CSAF and musing on this (God help the AF and America if that were the case) but I would want a jet that is: - under 40 million a tail - less an 5k an hour to fly - good overall kinematic performance but it is not required to have 9G, Mach 2 or 60k service ceiling performance. Better numbers are better but not at the expense of other factors. - low radar cross section but not economically unfeasibly low - open mission architecture - exceptional range / endurance for a multi-role striker, I would not want another mouth to feed scarce / expensive AR resources with. - good weapons capability but it doesn't have to be Herculean, at least 4 AAMs / SDBs / etc... again keep it real and keep price in mind. I've ranted on other threads about a hypothetical platform like this and will likely continue to do so as I am a crank but we only have so much appropriation to spend and time before China tries to test us for reals, we need a lot of platforms that we can rely on, unfortunately afford to lose some and hopefully deter other enemies with. This is one of them I think. Just vaporware but this Gripen E with CFTs is a good start:

On the subject of 4+ or 5- fighters https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/ Sounds like a Gripen E Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another great lament by VDH: America Descending into Collective Madness | National Review From the article: The common denominator with all these absurdities? An ungracious and neurotic elite whose judgment is bankrupt and whose privilege is paid for by those who don’t have it.

But what is the real requirement(s)? This platform or that platform is a good discussion but to get the Bobs to cut the check they have to believe in the requirement and then (ideally) that a manned platform owned/operated by the USAF is the right solution. I see it as two requirements - Conventional and SOF LASSO (light attack, surveillance, support and observation). - Conventional is a manned (potentially capable of unmanned operations) attack platform designed to deliver PGM fires and medium persistence ISR into low-med threat environments without an extensive logistical footprint or air refueling on a typical mission; organic self-defense from guided SAFIRES and defensive retrograde/defensive fire from/to A2A threats with supersonic and/or BVR capabilities. Highly connected and capable of connecting ground/air/naval players and inexpensive enough to operate repetitively for months/years on end in COIN, LIC or Hybrid conflicts that will require tailored use of the military IOP to achieve a desired/acceptable/inevitable end state. Alternate role in conventional conflict is as a Fusillade Platform for forward LO assets to provide fires from a stand-off platform and not reveal their presence or expend their ordinance in initial volleys. Shameless plug #69 and great example of this would be a more developed version of the Scorpion Jet with AR capabilities and additional systems (ECM provisions, BLOS, unmanned modes, etc...) tested and validated. - SOF is a manned attack platform designed to deliver unguided, direct and PGM fires along with medium persistence ISR into low threat environments without an extensive logistical footprint. It is designed to operate in support of SOF or Indigenous Forces from semi-prepared forward bases with a light logistical footprint, low total cost of operation and feasible for lesser economically capable Partner Nations to acquire, train and maintain. One of the main roles of this aircraft is to be an American supported platform to encourage PNs to buy and fly their own, to fight their own fights with and enable us to support/mentor their militaries in conflicts we see engagement as in America's interest. The repurposed Ag Applicator aircraft are probably better for that and not to be callous, the e-seat may be too expensive to for some PNs to afford and realistically maintain well. This applies to some PGMs as well, a corollary to the Light Attack saga needs to be less expensive PGMs with at least Hellfire range and low on the shelf maintenance requirements.

Interesting to read about how the other side is doing it (sts): Initial Fighter Pilot Training in the PLA Air Force

I'm glad that iron is finally arriving on the ramp, fingers crossed they actually get the other two. Interesting idea to make them a middleman node in the datalink architecture.

Unfortunately not much due to the demise of shame in our culture. Concur and I am totally ok with that, more sports less bullshit. Yup, it would cost a lot and I am not flippant about that but I'm still a believer in it as a net positive for America. As to the cost and paying for it, likely I would want a separate funding stream from the NDAA with a designated funding vehicle (tax) that is statutorily limited to only funding these military programs/operations/logistics. To limit costs on compulsory service, I'd would not apply that time to TAFMS for the purpose of pension eligibility or calculation, not allow single individuals to acquire dependents while on compulsory service, married individuals would have their immediate family covered but no new dependents and to preclude an unwarranted growth in operational capabilities, I would not plan for conscripted units to be part of an O-Plan that requires less than 72 hour mobility from them. Most likely, their operational capability would planned on using by being in place in an AOR if we are attacked (in place in South Korea, the Baltics, etc...) and if required for deployment for a contingency or deterrence, I would plan on moving them via the CRAF or NDRF as able. Basically if they are in place when the shit hits the fan we use them, if they are not there we will get them to the fight or another backfill mission as able if other units are sent forward. Those are good critiques and as always, my ideas on BO are worth what you paid for them but if we are to bind together our nation or try to it seems to me that we are going to have to work against all the things that driving us to atomized lives, this I think could be one of them and at one of the most consequential periods in a persons life.

As to the selection of the Phantom vs the Super Crusader, I think the twin engines and twin crew of the Phantom plus its multi role capability sold it over the Super for the Navy. Also, I don't think the Crusader had too many fans for bringing it aboard the boat. Seems like the pilots loved it in BFM and its speed but it was a particularly challenging plane to land on the boat. SeaWings documentary on the Crusader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyY0MRj8TWg Go to the 13:00 mark and some of the pilots give an honest assessment on carrier ops. Super Crusader is at the 23:50 mark. From the wiki on the Super: However, the solitary pilot in the XF8U-3 was easily overwhelmed with the workload required to fly the intercept and fire Sparrows which required constant radar illumination from the firing aircraft, while the Phantom II had a dedicated radar intercept officer on board … In addition, with the perception that the age of the guns was over, the Phantom's considerably larger payload and the ability to perform air-to-ground as well as air-to-air missions, trumped Vought's fast but single-purposed fighter..[1] With the analog tech of the time, I imagine radar intercepts were as much art as procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgIfQxqIvU Go to the 12:10 mark for the part on instruction on using the radar for intercepts, old school tech, love it. It is curious as the USAF was flying 102s and 104s, both single seat interceptors, and I don't remember reading critiques on those planes having an overwhelming cognitive load but as they were designed/planned to intercept a bomber or bomber formation, they may not have required a solo pilot to demonstrate simultaneous engagement of multiple targets. No idea, but just a WAG. Thought the same about the PACT F-4 and the STOL/MTD F-15. Video game render of an operational Agile Eagle:

Phantom Tuesday Phantom pregnancies: F-4 variants that never were | Hush-Kit Dedicated Air to Air version (T model) YF-4E PACT demonstrator with canards https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197971/mcdonnell-douglas-yf-4e-phantom-ii/ Single seat concept Phantom with WSO replaced with F-15's avionics F-4T Phantom II by Bud Sliger (aircraftresourcecenter.com) And a conformal belly mod for weapons, cm and fuel The Phantom Phacts: Conformal Weapons Carriage and the F-4

No doubt on loopholes and deferments/alternatives would be required. Refining this idea, maybe a draft is part of the solution and really it is a choice of national service programs to provide multiple benefits to the American people, particularly the young. The Draft/Conscription could be a short military enlistment (18 months) with an overseas tour (Korea, Alaska, Eastern Europe, etc...) or completion of Basic with mandatory Drills following then release from service, thinking 2 months in the summer to allow students to muster and then return to school. I would open this option to 16 year olds to allow service to begin earlier. At least 4 drills, no more than 6. The 18 month program would come with a bonus to encourage selection but both programs would earn full GI Bill benefits and Veteran status. This is gonna cost and require further reform at the VA but so be it. As most young people don't qualify for military service, the military options in my little musings could be selective as I would want them to be the most desired form of national service in this new program. Young people mostly unqualified for military service and careers (usatoday.com) Others could be AmeriCorps, CCC, Peace Corps, etc... 2 years of service in these programs would equate to 2 years of college/technical school paid with federal hiring preference in lieu of veteran hiring preference. As to the logistical bill of this large influx (primarily to the Army I imagine), I would want to steer that to our heart land and cities that could use a boost in population. Goal would be to put 300k thru military training/service each year. Money, imagination and political will; @congressman make it happen.

No doubt not all wind turbines fault to be sure. Natural gas, advanced nuclear power, localized renewable energy with on-tap fossil/nuke back ups and hydro where it makes sense. Coal should not be put out of business IMO but nationalized for a period of time as it is cheap, ours and abundant and is another source of liquified fuels with appropriate processing. Another fuel reserve to give us freedom of maneuver if necessary.

In answer to your topic question, probably not with much wind generated electricity right now: Historic winter storm freezes Texas wind turbines, millions without power - TheBlaze

Checkmate VIDEO: Cop plays Beatles' 'Yesterday' while cellphone camera records him, presumably to trigger copyright claim so clip is blocked - TheBlaze

I echo the sentiment of wanting the truly priviledged and connected to have skin in the game, sometimes they do but most of the time of late not. I don't think that could ever be done, legally, however they could at least feel the financial cost of it and that might give pause to them. An adjustable marginal tax rate applied to the highest income bracket to pay for all overseas military operations and logistics might cause the ruling classes to be more careful about writing checks for other bodies to cash. Concur it would not be perfect but something would be better than nothing methinks. I'm more inclined though to say military service or no program. Don't have a beef with those pursuits (peace corps, ccc, etc...) but part of this is indoctrination of a sorts, whose doctrine is always the question but American indoctrination in this case. I concede in advance the unease anyone could have at that but I think something is in order. There is something character building about suffering, struggle and then improvement leading to success and accomplishment. I see more than a few young people in my orbit and in larger society that are not getting that necessary phase in their lives to achieve maturity. COVID, the rise of Wokeism, the general denigration of meritocratic ideals and physically competitive pursuits, etc... are all playing a part in this loss of forging those ready to work, fight and lead. I see a mass surge of military service as a potential antidote. How it could be done and not totally disrupt or backfire into resentment of the people we want to win their hearts and minds back to America is the question...

On the subject of the draft / conscription, this podcast was worth the listen: ‎Angry Planet: Service Without a Smile: A History of the Draft on Apple Podcasts Question for the forum: Is the draft not just a tool for military manpower? Could it be used to build a shared national experience in a segment(s) of the younger generations (17-25 year olds)? The draft gets beat up pretty bad in the podcast, not hard to do as the professor interviewed lays out the major problems with it particularly recently in the Vietnam era but maybe it is what (overall) we need in our society among other programs to foster a connection(s) between the different racial, socio-economic, geographically separated, etc... groups in our country.

Finished listening to One Billion Americans. Not convinced of his argument and don't support it, shocking I know. Mainly I found it naïve and assuming, in that the problems that would accompany a policy of rapid mass migration could be solved with the central planner solutions he proposes. That pretty much sums up my main critique of his book, there is SO MUCH DETAIL he goes into that could be discussed and not all of his ideas are bad, but no thanks. I would recommend it for a Nationalist / Conservative looking to see how the other side is thinking and what is behind their ideas.

Yeah, we want a straight stand up fight where the enemy shows up to be heroically mowed down and beaten in one cataclysmic battle with no moral question of who is right / wrong, it is over and done quickly and the vanquished are thankful to us and it all works out better. 0.00000001% chance of that happening in conflicts we will be involved in the future. Concur on the likely necessity of human casualties to actually spur the US to respond militarily to Russian / Chinese physical aggression. Had not heard of loose vs tight cultures, always thought of it as open vs closed societies but that is another good way of describing us vs. them. Open / Loose had better figure out that standing up for themselves and being confident i their inherent worth, right to exist and I would say superiority to the closed authoritarian systems or they will dither / self-flatulate themselves away.

WOR article supporting overseas basing (continued) https://warontherocks.com/2021/01/why-overseas-military-bases-continue-to-make-sense-for-the-united-states/ For it in the right places and for the right reasons / threats but elsewhere (ahem Germany) not so much. Referencing @jazzdudeand @Lawman points and just a rhetorical question - how do you fight an opponent(s) that knows you are averse to any taking any significant casualties (for many valid reasons), are dependent on information superiority and have multiple elements in your society that can be exploited to confuse, dissuade and degrade political and national will to fight?

Listed at 3.8 million so the AF price would probably be 5.8 million a tail but even at that cost replacing the 178 Jayhawks in service today would come to 1.03 billion, spread that over 5 FYs. Fight like hell heavy aviators to keep a decent advanced trainer for heavy / crew tracked students or the Bobs are going to take your red stapler and put you in the basement with a can of roach spray. If by some miracle a follow on to the T-1 comes about, call it the Swingline and paint it red